KATHRYN VANDOLAH v. DARRYL SCOTT WEBB

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 9, 2025
DocketA25A0214
StatusPublished

This text of KATHRYN VANDOLAH v. DARRYL SCOTT WEBB (KATHRYN VANDOLAH v. DARRYL SCOTT WEBB) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
KATHRYN VANDOLAH v. DARRYL SCOTT WEBB, (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

SECOND DIVISION RICKMAN, P. J., GOBEIL and DAVIS, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

June 9, 2025

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A25A0214. VANDOLAH et al. v. WEBB et al.

RICKMAN, Presiding Judge.

Darryl Scott Webb and Katrinka Lynette Webb filed a declaratory judgment

action against Kathryn VanDolah and John VanDolah to determine whether the

Webbs have an easement over property owned by the VanDolahs. Following a bench

trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the Webbs. In several enumerations of error, the

VanDolahs argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the Webbs have an

express easement over the VanDolahs’ property as to a disputed road.

On an appeal from an entry of judgment following a bench trial, we apply a de novo standard of review to any questions of law decided by the trial court, but will defer to any factual findings made by that court if there is any evidence to sustain them. Nevertheless, if the trial court makes a finding of fact which is unsupported by the record, that finding cannot be upheld, and any judgment based upon such a finding must be reversed.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Emson Investment Properties v. JHJ Jodeco 65, 349

Ga. App. 644, 644-645 (824 SE2d 113) (2019).

The record shows that the Webbs own real property in Gilmer County, Georgia,

described as Lots 5, 6, and 7 in the Hidden Valley Estates subdivision. The plat of

survey for the Hidden Valley Estates subdivision, which is dated February 26, 2003,

was recorded on July 3, 2003.

The VanDolahs also own real property in Gilmer County, Georgia, in an

adjacent subdivision. The VanDolahs’ property is described as Lot 16 of the Big Creek

Highlands subdivision. The plat of survey for the Big Creek Highlands subdivision,

which is dated March 11, 2003, was recorded on March 24, 2003.

The Hidden Valley Estates plat identifies Tom Colwell and Darren Rowan as

the owners and developers. Colwell and Rowan acquired the property that now

belongs to the Webbs in January 2001 and conveyed it to Hidden Valley Estates, LLC,

in September 2003. The deed conveying the property from Colwell and Rowan to

Hidden Valley Estates, LLC, refers to and incorporates a plat recorded in “Plat Book

2 30 page 20” of the Gilmer County records. On the Big Creek Highlands plat, Colwell

and Rowan are shown as the “owner/developer 24 hour contact” and are identified

as the developer on the “developers certificate,” but Colwell and Rowan, individually,

do not appear in the chain of title for the VanDolahs’ property. When the Big Creek

Highlands plat was prepared and recorded in March 2003, Big Creek Properties, Inc.,

owned the property that now belongs to the VanDolahs.

On October 29, 2004, Hidden Valley Estates, LLC, conveyed the Webbs’

property to William Lee Holt, Jr. The warranty deed from Hidden Valley Estates,

LLC, to Holt refers to and incorporates the Hidden Valley Estates plat. The Hidden

Valley Estates plat shows parallel lines running southwest from the Big Creek

Highlands subdivision into Lot 4 of the Hidden Valley Estates subdivision, turning

west into the Webbs’ property, curving back into the Big Creek Highlands

subdivision, then southwest again into the Webbs’ property. All subsequent deeds in

the Webbs’ chain of title refer to and incorporate the Hidden Valley Estates plat.

Also on October 29, 2004, Big Creek Properties, Inc., conveyed the

VanDolahs’ property to Holt. The warranty deed from Big Creek Properties, Inc., to

Holt refers to and incorporates the Big Creek Highlands plat. The Big Creek

3 Highlands plat shows parallel lines running across the VanDolahs’ property and into

the adjacent property, which is identified as “Colwell and Rowan P.B. 30/PG. 20.”

All subsequent deeds in the VanDolahs’ chain of title refer to and incorporate the Big

Creek Highlands plat.

This case began in February 2022, when the Webbs filed a petition against the

VanDolahs seeking, in relevant part, an order declaring that the Webbs have title to

an express easement crossing the VanDolahs’ property. The case proceeded to a

bench trial, following which the trial court entered an order in favor of the Webbs on

their declaratory judgment claim. This appeal followed.

1. The VanDolahs contend that the trial court erred by concluding as a matter

of law that because the plats for both the Hidden Valley Estates subdivision and the

Big Creek Highlands subdivision depict the disputed road, and those plats are

referenced in the deeds conveying the parties’ properties, the Webbs have an express

easement over the property of the VanDolahs. Specifically, the VanDolahs argue in

part that the trial court incorrectly stated that the properties have the same

developers, and that because the developer of Hidden Valley Estates did not own the

4 VanDolahs’ property, the Hidden Valley Estates developer did not have the authority

to encumber the VanDolahs’ property.

The trial court found that Colwell and Rowan were the original owners of both

the VanDolahs’ property and the Webbs’ property; that they were the developers of

both Big Creek Highlands and Hidden Valley Estates; that their business name for Big

Creek Highlands was “Big Creek Properties, Inc.”; and that they were the beneficial

owners.

Relying on WS CE Resort Owner v. Holland, 315 Ga. 691 (884 SE2d 282) (2023),

and Rahn v. Pittman, 216 Ga. 523 (118 SE2d 85) (1961), the trial court found that the

fact that the subdivision plats for both developments, which depict the disputed road,

were incorporated by reference into the parties’ deeds, is sufficient to create an

express easement to the Webbs as to the disputed road. In Holland, the Supreme

Court of Georgia explained that “Georgia law has long recognized that when a

developer conveys lots with reference to a subdivision plat, the grantees may receive

easements in certain features — mostly streets and parks — that are designated on the

plat.” Holland, 315 Ga. at 695 (2) (a). In Rahn, our Supreme Court stated that

“[w]hen a grantor sells lots of land, and in his deeds describes them as bounded by

5 streets, not expressly mentioned in the deeds, but shown upon a plat therein referred

to as laid out in a subdivision of the grantor’s land, he is estopped to deny the

grantee’s right to use the streets delineated in such plat[.]” (Citation and punctuation

omitted.) Rahn, 216 Ga. at 524 (1).

The VanDolahs argue that Holland does not determine the outcome of this

case, and that Rahn is inapplicable, because the developer of Hidden Valley Estates

never owned an interest in the Big Creek Highlands subdivision. We agree. Hidden

Valley Estates, LLC, never owned the VanDolahs’ property. And Colwell and Rowan,

individually, never owned the VanDolahs’ property. Even assuming Colwell and

Rowan were the sole shareholders of Big Creek Properties, Inc., “corporations are

separate legal entities from their shareholders, officers, directors, and employees. This

is so even in the situation in which a corporation is owned solely by one person.”

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Emson Investment Properties, 349 Ga. App. at 648

(2). Consequently, the trial court erred in finding that Colwell and Rowan were the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lamas v. Baldwin
230 S.E.2d 13 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Palm Restaurant of Georgia, Inc. v. Prakas
366 S.E.2d 826 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Rahn v. Pittman
118 S.E.2d 85 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Yawn v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
706 S.E.2d 197 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Emson Investment Properties, LLC v. Jhj Jodeco 65, LLC
824 S.E.2d 113 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
KATHRYN VANDOLAH v. DARRYL SCOTT WEBB, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathryn-vandolah-v-darryl-scott-webb-gactapp-2025.